Fox's Gretchen Carlson: "I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th"
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, following co-host Steve Doocy's remark that "we've got to be tolerant of people who celebrate holidays in December, like Ramadan. ... [Y]ou've got to be tolerant of all people," co-host Gretchen Carlson declared: "I am tolerant. I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th."
On the December 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, following co-host Steve Doocy's remark that "we've got to be tolerant of people who celebrate holidays in December, like Ramadan. ... You've got to be tolerant of all people," co-host Gretchen Carlson declared: "I am tolerant. I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th." Carlson's remark occurred during a discussion of a Washington state man's reported request to erect a pole at the state capitol to celebrate Festivus, the fictional holiday that originated on the NBC sitcom Seinfeld.
From the December 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): The key is about Christmas, you know, this is a time to be tolerant of people of all religions, you know, go ahead --
CARLSON: Oh, please.
DOOCY: You don't want to be tolerant of people of other religions?
CARLSON: No. Of Festivus? No, there's about two people in the world.
DOOCY: Gretchen, Festivus is not a religion --
CARLSON: They're putting it up there.
DOOCY: -- it is a --
CARLSON: You're missing the point, it's a mockery --
DOOCY: It is a holiday.
CARLSON: -- of what 85 percent of the general public believes in.
DOOCY: We've got -- we've got to be tolerant of people who celebrate holidays in December, like Ramadan. We've got to be tolerant. You've got to be tolerant of all people.
CARLSON: I am tolerant. I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): On Ramadan -- we stopped bombing on Ramadan --
DOOCY: Festivus is the 23rd.
KILMEADE: -- that was a salute, right?
CARLSON: I can't believe you guys. I'm going to say what I said yesterday. I can't believe you guys are defending this.
I don't get it, why is she opposed to free speech on Shane MacGowan's birthday?
I did not know that. Fairytale of New York is 20 years old. That hurts.
My all time favorite Christmas tune.
Okay, while giving props to the Pogues, please don't forget the late, great Kirsty MacColl.
I wasn't even aware that she'd died but just looked it up. Sad to see she's gone.
The perfect spot to use some of my meagre store of Gaelic:
Pogue mahone, cuilin.
What's the problem? She's only suggesting that Constitutional rights be restricted with respect to an establishment of religion. Isn't that what this country was founded on?
I thought it was founded on escaping religious persecution, not enabling it.
What was it that guy said about the Dixie Chicks on the trailor to their movie? "Free speech is all well and good, but for God sakes, don't do it in public!?!"
These people have a very shackled view of freedom.
Hey, Con. Years ago, I had a t-shirt that had an American flag with some barbed wire on it, and the words "Censorship is Un-American". A woman approached me on the street and asked what it meant.I couldn't imagine anybody needing it explained, but I did my best. Then I asked her if she was pro-censorship.She answered " That depends what you're censoring".
I conceded the debate right there. What do you even say to thinking like that?
There's not much you can say that will do any good, Col. I usually try to point out that the person I'm talking to would probably object to having me choose what he could or couldn't say/read, etc. as I would object to his making those choices for me. It doesn't really work for those with a Manichean bent.
That's a frightening thought--censorship is ALWAYS for the benefit of those in power, NEVER for the benefit of anybody else. Ideas
In the movie The American President there is a phrase that I like and can't remember exactly, but it's something like: "America is advanced citizenship, you've got to want it bad. You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, standing and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours...show me that, defend that in your classrooms, then you can talk about the land of the free." This is absolutely true, and far too many people ignore the fact that our First Amendment applies to EVERYBODY. Bush had "free speech zones" set up, forgetting -- or not caring -- that this entire NATION is a free speech zone.
Last xmas Yoko restarted the "War is Over" campaign. I downloaded the sign from the web site, put it up in my condo window and the next day the prez. of the condo board was telling me I had to take it doen. And then asked 'War is Over, what does that mean?"
...I had to take it doen
should be ... I had to take it down
My guess is that the woman was confusing censorship with consequences for action.
"All men are created equal." Only some are more equal than others.
I think in her ferver to insist on some sort of decorum concerning decorations of the christmas season she certainly used the wrong terminology. I saw the show and all of the guests were a bit overzealous in trying to horsecollar people who don't celebrate christmas on her terms, but at the same time, it would clearly be more effective to "protest" the displays before and/or after the season and merely tolerate those expressions. A day doesn't go by in which we all are expected to tolerate something that irritates us or affects us one way or another---" 'tis the season"---enjoy it!
the problem comes when you allow a nativity scene and a menorah. then how do you say no to others? i have no problem with a tree and lights, because those things are not really religious, and they can be representative of anyone. i enjoy chistmas season. i say merry christmas even though i am not a "christian" in the sense of belonging to a religion.
what you have with so many christians is a victim mentality. they won't let us pray in school. no, go ahead, it just can't be an official ceremony. some years ago, i was sitting at the beach in my car, sipping coffee and listening to the radio. i saw a guy approaching people and talking to them. he finally got to me, and he said he would like to "have a word" with me. i looked at the pamphlets he had in his hand, jesus with the little lambs, and i said firmly but politely, i'm not interested thank you. and in return, he said you don't even know what i wanted to talk about. i said i knew exactly what he wanted and i was not interested. he looked at me for a few seconds, and i stared at him, like where do you want this to go, do you want me to call a cop over. he wisely walked off, but with an attitude. he really had no complaint, because i'm not obligated to listen to him.
There certainly are a lot of christians who wanna shove their ideas down the throats of others. I'm a christian and I believe I learned all that I need to know about respecting others and basically being a decent person[except for being a conservative :)] when I was young and I believe most organized religions today exist merely to make a buck. But in so many cases recently, the people protesting christmas "ornaments" get a little aggressive themselves and usually for all the wrong reasons.
but a nativity set is not an ornament. it's an expression of one religion.
I italicized ornament to represent all expressions of christmas because the christmas holidays celebrates the birth of Jesus. A christmas tree represents the birth of jesus. A christmas party at school celebrates the birth of Jesus. I just have a difficult time understanding the sentiment of those who object to the celebration of the birth of Jesus and I assume it is because it is done so openly in public, with displays everywhere you go at this time of year. It looks like the only compromise would be to insist on all religions to celebrate their faith in private. With the way christmas has become, for example the WalMart incident in New York, it may be the best way to proceed.
The only reason that a christmas tree and a christmas party are associated with the birth of Jesus is because the christians hijacked the celebration of the winter solstice. The christmas tree is a symbol of a celebration that predates the birth of Jesus.
The reason that christians hijacked the celebration of winter solstice is that they has to have a way to get the "pagans" to celebrate "with" them. If this holiday was celebrated on Jesus' birth it wouldn't be held for 3-4 months.
Additionally, if you were a true believer of the Bible and the Ten Commandments you would be angry that people were putting up nativity scenes.
A Christmas tree does NOT represent the birth of Jesus. A Christmas tree is simply a hold-over from the Druidical rites of the ancient nature-worshipping Celts, and was incorporated by the Church as a means of bringing pagan people at least peripherally into the fold. Like numerous other 'christian' practices (such as celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25... the high point of the Roman's 12 day Saturnalia festival) such practices were intended to give popular non-christian rites and celebrations a christian veneer. This is why a Christmas tree is largely seen more as an expression of the greate holiday season, since it holds absolutely no christian religious signifigance.
i don't think i expressed any opposition to nativity displays anywhere, except public property. it's not hard to understand. i also said no menorahs on public property, because that is also celebrated at christmas time. it's miscasting my position to say i want to ban all religious displays.
ROFLMAO
Can we add that to the inane punditry list?
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): The key is about Christmas, you know, this is a time to be tolerant of people of all religions, you know, go ahead --
What a presumptuous, asinine thing for a man with a public microphone to say. Christians tolerate other religions at Christmas out of Christmas spirit?
I also wonder if these geniuses are aware that baby Jesus was most likely born in the month of June and that the dates of Christian holidays were borrowed from other religions. It's as though they believe Christianity owns exclusive rights to religious holidays in the month of December. It would be funny if it wasn't so real-life stupid.
And how many are aware the Jesus was of the Jewish faith and was not a "Christian"
The denial of anothers free speech when it inconveniences you...Gretchen...Is intolerance! The same goes for denying people of the same sex to get married because you mistakenly think it threatens your marriage!
What is everybody getting so upset about? It's FOX NEWS, for Christ's sake! (Oops, did I just type that? Sorry.)
Thanks for the laugh!
Well... in the spirit of the holidays:
HAPPY FESTIVUS Y'ALL!
When do we get to the feats of strength and airing of MMFA family grievances?
SERENITY NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!
We do enough "airing of grievences" here everyday! I don't think we need a holiday to do that.
Feats of strength... I'll go 3 rounds with any conservative poster here!
HAHAHA... SERENITY NOW!
It's Christmas, not a Scottish Games...
Do you ever get it, Easy?
The "airing of grievences" and the "feats of strength" are traditional parts of the Festivus celebration! Look it up! Try wiki!
Where do these con's come from? ANd why do they never seem to get the point? LOL
And a Wine-besotted Saturnalia back atcha.
It is a sign of the times that a requests like this one for Festivus being displayed on some State capital grounds has to be taken seriously let alone supported by so many here on the left.
I took it as a spoof of the idea that the government is supposed to be in the business of promoting holidays.
Religious holidays are good for the economy... But rather than buying Christmas gifts for the poor, give them money instead so they can take advantage of the big after-Christmas sales. I'm sure that makes baby Jesus smile... ;>)
wookie,
Obviously it is a put on. Why bureaucrats have to put up with such obvious nonsense is the question. It simply wastes taxpayers' money.
What you forget is that the government does promote holidays all year long. Christmas is a federal holiday. Why do we not see this type of nonsense at the other holidays?
AA, do you realize that referring to other peoples' beliefs as "nonsense" only displays your religious bigotry?
Truly, as a believer in the flying spaghetti monster, Festivus is my holy time of year. Why would someone try to denigrate that?
I am a victim of religious persecution.
Are you aware that the Pastafarians now have different sects? Some believe his noodly appendage is linguini, some say angel hair.
I myself always thought it was rotini.
It was ziti, but that cleared up when he hit puberty.
I'll tell you what I think it was if I cannelloni remember it.
I'm more of a penne-costal myself.
Festivus is my holy time of year.
And obviously AA doesn't even know whether the airing of grievances comes before or after the feats of strength.
"It simply wastes taxpayers' money."
Yeah, like those perennial court battles to plaster the Ten Commandments on our public buildings.
Or to force religious doctrine into science class.
Your bigotry is showing. Other religions are not "nonsense."
Your comprehension is faulty. I never said they were.
Sign of the times? Nothing new here, the coins in my pocket have a statement of trust in a supernatural being, and as a kid I had to take a loyalty oath to a banner, in which I declared a Nation under the control of a magic ruler.
You're just now finding this stuff crazy?
Amen to that! [/irony]
It is a sign of the times that a requests like this one for Festivus being displayed on some State capital grounds has to be taken seriously let alone supported by so many here on the left.
Please don't overlook the larger point. I don't care if it is taken seriously,nor do I support it (or any other quant holiday display). The issue for me is do I think it's right to forbid it? It is not right to forbid free speech or public display unless it will cause a riot. I support free speech, not just the speech I agree with. "It's a sign of the times" when folks don't realize this basic principle.
ML,
I support free speech too. However you are mistaken that every goofy idea or 'spoof' has to be given the same right to have a display at the State capital.
You have to dig deeper than and have some discernment over which you choose to defend. Defending the right to display a fake festival like Festivus makes you look like a comedian.
How do you distinguish between a goofy idea and someone's act of faith? Really, if people were to tell you that they really celebrated Festifus as a religious observation, how would you dispute that?
This should be fun.
I don't think this one is even in Barney's ballpark.His bigotry is keeping him from even seeing his bigotry.
I'll take a shot at the answer. I think that when you can trace the origin of a religion back to a sitcom from the mid-90's, then that should swing the pendulum pretty hard towards the goofy idea end.
So a goofy idea that's followed for a longer period of time is no longer goofy?
Maybe some people take it seriously. How would you tell them they were wrong? Scientology isn't very old either, but how would you argue that they can't have a display because they're "goofy"?
You asked me how I would distinguish a goofy idea from somebody's act of faith. Seinfeld was a fictional television program so if somebody takes an idea from it and turns it into their own religion then I consider that a goofy idea. That doesn't forbid them from believing whatever they want to, but in my opinion it would not pass a reasonableness standard to have their own public display. It would be a subjective determination.
I find that to be every bit as credible as a source of religion as a bunch of goatherds several thousand years ago is. It simply seems obvious to me that every religion is entirely of human origin.
Aren't you judging someone's faith then?
I would agree that if it's a matter of limited space, the more popular religions would get the display spaces. Otherwise, you can't really tell someone "your beliefs are invalid, therefore you can't have a display".
In the example cited, I would be judging someones faith. That is correct.
If you're familiar with AA's posts, you've probably seen his pattern of complaints about people disrespecting and persecuting Christians. Not that I wanted to prohibit someone else from answering the question, but you've reached the conclusion that AA should reach.
Brab,
I understand the point everyone is trying to make which is freedom of religion. I find it ironic because half of the people don't believe in religion, or at least so it seems.
Taking a ridiculous example like festivus or the flying spaghetti monster, which are intended to be ridiculous, and then trying make a serious argument that they indeed are religious is itself ridiculous.
That is what I was saying ealier. There is no discernment in this day and age. If A happens to have a tradition going back 2,000 years and accepted by the overhwelming vast majority then people lacking discernment somehow feel b through z, no matter how ridiculous or serious, have to somehow be accorded the exact same deference as a. That type of reasoning is laughable.
I heard on the news of someone, who lacks discernment, actually complained about an elemetary school Christmas program about having "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" removed from the song list because it contained the word "Christmas". The school district, obviously with a bureaucrat who also lacked any discernment, caved in and had the song was removed. How utterly ridiculous, but it is a sign of the times.
Your first sentence says a lot about you. People who don't believe in religion can still argue for freedom of religion. It's a personal matter.
The whole point of faith is to believe in something that's not reasonable. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a test to anyone. So Christianity doesn't allow itself to be viewed through any prism of rationality, therefore the length of time it's been around, the number of people who believe in it, etc. is all irrelevant. Those are objective measurements which do not affect the subjective and utterly unprovable nature of faith.
Therefore, if someone really believes in the flying spaghetti monster, their beliefs have the exact same standing as yours.
Brab,
You lack discernment. The fsm is a ridicule against those who believe in God.
If you want to believe in the fsm, go ahead. That is your right and you have the freedom to do so. However to argue that believing in it is the same as believing in God is of a foolish nature.
If you feel believing in God is also foolish, that too is your perogative. However there are millions of people who do believe in God and Jesus unlike those, like you, who only bring up the fsm as a point of discussion.
When you and your fsm sect start behaving like a religion, then you will be accorded the same respect as a religion.
However we both know you are trying to make a point by arguing ad absurdem about beliefs. It is lacking in discernment that you put the fsm on an equal footing as Christianity.
The millions of people don't matter. It doesn't matter how many people share a view of faith, it is still a view of faith. There is nothing more foolish about believing in one unprovable entity than another. Therefore you can't discriminate against one simply because of your personal deity of choice.
Again, I'm talking about people who genuinely claim to believe in something. I'm not saying my sarcastic view of the FSM is on the same footing as Christianity.
I know there are people who have set out to disprove Christianity and have found themselves converted to the faith once they researched the topic. C.S. Lewis comes to mind, I know there are others.
My point being that Christianity has stood up pretty well to the scrutiny of its critics over a couple of centuries. In my view, that differentiates Christianity from the other examples you gave. Could those other examples survive the kind of scrutiny that Christianity has endured?
Therefore, while peoples beliefs in Christianity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster have the same standing, I don't believe that the religions themselves have the same standing.
I'm not really arguing that anyone genuinely believes in the FSM, so obviously Christianity is better at propagating itself. There is no actual religion for the FSM, as far as I know. Even if there was, it was never intended to be taken seriously, so it's not likely to convince many people that it's the path to righteousness.
Either you allow yourself to be evaluated objectively or you don't. You can't say "we're a faith, God works in mysterious ways, don't use your logic on us", and then turn around and question anyone for their beliefs. If they don't like Festivus, it's really just too bad, because the rules that allow them to have a display are the very same rules that allowed any Christian religion to grow and prosper in the first place.
Your first paragraph acknowledges that those "religions" were never meant to be taken seriously and that is AA's point that I agree with.
When I acknowledged that I was judging someone elses faith in an above reply, that was the basis for my judgment. It is not a serious religion as defined by the religion itself. If people want to believe in it anyways, I certainly won't stop them.
Sure, I understand what you mean. And you acknowledge my original point when you say "Therefore, while peoples beliefs in Christianity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster have the same standing, I don't believe that the religions themselves have the same standing". Remember, I wanted to know how you distinguish an act of faith from a goofy idea. The answer is:you can't. If they really believe it, then they should be allowed to express it just as much as Christians do. Unless there's a space constraint, then there's no need for any objective criteria to be evaluated, and they all have the same rights.
"I understand the point everyone is trying to make which is freedom of religion. I find it ironic because half of the people don't believe in religion, or at least so it seems."
I want to mention this again, because I don't think you realize what you said.
It seems ironic to you that people who don't believe in religion would support freedom of religion. As if agnostics/atheists don't care about the rights of people that disagree with us on a religious basis, like "you have faith, so your Constitutional rights don't matter to us".
Do you realize how unfair that is? Do you realize that your expectation of people to not give a damn about freedom of religion is an act of prejudice on your part? And this from the person who is always so eager to talk about the unfair treatment of Christians.
Remove the log from your own eye.
My gut feeling is that EVERY act of faith started as someone's goofy idea.
GOOFY IDEAS?!
Are you kidding?! That's an essential part of ALL RELIGIONS my friend!
Can't eat Pork? Or Beef? Or drink Alchohol? Or CAFEENE?!
No meat on Friday?
Two naked people magically appearing in a magic garden with a talking snake? (Or an earth that's 4000-6000 years old?!)
Contraception and/or masturbation is a mortal sin?
Thou shall not COVET?!
I defy you to find a single religion ANYWHERE that's not CHOCK FULL or "goofy ideas" and I'll probably JOIN the S.O.B.!
Nice,
Your examples only expose your ignorance of various religious prohibitions and stories. You obviously don't understand the meaning behind them or you would not say they are goofy.
Try Brabs flying spaghetti monster religion. :-)
Why is it forbidden to covet? I'd really like to know.
To covet, in itself, is just to want something, right? That isn't a problem. It harms nobody, not even yourself. The problem is if you want something so bad that you lie, or steal, or kill in order to get it. But those things are already covered by other commandments. If it's a matter of it leading to anything else, it's redundant.
Also, a huge portion of the economy is based on wanting things. It's what advertising is all about. Nobody needs a Hummer to get from their suburban home to their office in the city. Nobody needs a video game system to survive. No woman needs a $300 pair of boots to get around. People are convinced that they want them, they are convinced to covet them.
Doesn't that make much of our economy immoral by nature?
Boy, AA sure doesn't seem very secure in his faith, but his word-a-day calendar obviously featured "discernment" today.
Brab, very nice example with the coveting.I'm sure the people you're directing it at won't be able to process it, just wanted to let you know it's appreciated.
Thanks! I wasn't even that concerned with it as relevant to the conversation. I just really want to know, and AA holds himself up as the expert here.
Part of it is about priorities. Maybe there's some Godly desire to have people think a certain way, but surely there are more important things. Such as hating people for the color of their skin, or owning people, things like that. Supposedly some racist slaveowner could be perfectly right with the Lord, but I'm a sinner just because I see a new cell phone on TV and think "I gotta have that!"
Can this woman possibly be that stupid?
Christians had a virtual monopoly for a couple of centuries, and have taken advantage of their numeric superiority to cheat the Separation of Church and State at every opportunity.
Now that the Secularists and people of other faiths are starting to push back, the Christians are sounding just a little shrill and whiny.
Nerzog,
I have to laugh that the best secularists can come up with are spaghetti monsters and festivus. Those lampoons only backfire on themselves.
btw, where does it say in the Constitution the phrase, "Separation of Church and State"?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And here's something for people who care deeply about the intent of the Founding Fathers:
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
You are an originalist, right?
Sorry, Brab, didn't see your response. You'll notice that Barney asked where the phrase is in the Constitution, when nobody said those exact words were.I listen to enough wingnut radio to be familiar with the stuff they've been misled with.
If you're not familiar with the distortion (and it's made clear by the quote in your link above), the righty talkers try to interpret "establishment "(in the sense of "establishing") as "an establishment" (as in a specific institution or organization).The trick they've played on the suckers is convincing them that this "establishment" is a specific denomination of Christianity. From there, they can press to make laws according to The Bible, just not specific to one sect.
It's worked on at least one person, no question.
No problem at all. I certainly did notice that he asked where the phrase was in the Constitution.
I jumped on this one quickly because just a few days ago, AA was talking about how he supports originalist judges like Bork. It was all about the will of the Founding Fathers.
Then he lays this egg.
If there's anything that has been made clear as to intent, this is it. Jefferson made himself very clear with his use of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state", so I'm looking forward to his explanation of how he thinks the Establishment Clause means something else.
Brab,
The point I was making to nerzog, is that his reliance on the wording "separation of church and state" as being cheating.
I full well know the First Amendment and the key point, which is lost among many here, including you, that is the prohibition for the government to establish a religion and prohibiting free expression of religion.
Nerzog is completley mistaken in his argument that Christians are "cheating" because he does not understand at all the First Amendment and what it prohibits the government from doing.
It also prohibits the sponsorship of any particular faith over any others. Read my post again.
Your reply is redundant. I did read your reply and by citing the First Amendment you are in effectin supporting my original argument that nerzog does not understand the intent or the wording of the amendment.
What the hell are you talking about? I linked to a very reliable source talking about Jefferson, and his intent was clearly demonstrated. How on earth is that supporting your argument?
You're not.
Er... I mean, its not.
I knew what you meant. Now, if only AA can explain his "originalist" view of the Establishment Clause, that's the clarification I'd really love to see.
To clarify myself, I'm just struck by the contrast here. I've done what you did, and most of the time I basically say "eh, they know what I mean" and forget it. But you make sure your meaning is clear. AA, on the other hand, leaves this blatant contradiction just hanging out there, and makes no effort to come back and explain himself.
That contrast is very stark, and I think it says a lot about character.
prohibition for the government to establish a religion
That's the part you've got wrong, AA. Until you figure that out, you'll continue to think it's everybody else that's confused and ignorant.
Those lampoons only backfire on themselves.(AA)
If you consider them ridiculous, they've worked perfectly, whether you understand it or not.
And I don't think that anybody said the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution. It's from another document, and it's used to dumb down the establishment clause for those who misinterpret it as a safeguard against establishing one denomination over another. Unfortunately, the very people it's been simplified for have been fooled into thinking that it doesn't exist.
The phrase was made famous by Thomas Jefferson, but a slight variation of it was used several times in the writings of James Madison, who is considered the "Father of the Constitution".
Anti-separationists don't like to talk about Madison.
It's in that same section that talks about State's Rights and Separation of Powers.
Here's the thing. If Christians insist on religious displays on public property at Christmas, on what legal/Constitutional grounds can they deny the same right to those of other faiths, or of no faith?
And, no, "tradition" is not a valid reason.
There is no valid reason.
on what legal/Constitutional grounds can they deny the same right to those of other faiths, or of no faith?
This, friend, is the point when someone comes in and tells us that we're a "Christian Nation"...
Why, for the same reason that they can claim "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" or "'under God' has always been part of the Pledge" or "Christmas has always been celebrated this way" - because the vast majority of people are too lazy to check to see if these claims are true before repeating them. Sure, "tradition" isn't a valid reason (especially since, as has been pointed out, "Christmas" was created in large part to encourage pagans to convert) but it sure convinces a lot of people...
"no faith" has no religious displays.
nerzog,
Why is "tradition" not a valid reason?
I can answer that. You can do something improper for years upon years, thereby establishing "tradition". It doesn't make it appropriate.
Absolutely, Brabs. The antebellum South railed and sputtered against Northerners "attacking our traditions" as a means of defending the brutal insanity of slavery.
Tradition is not a valid reason because it has no weight in Constitutional or legal matters.
I guess you could argue that Legal Precedence is a form of "tradition", but that's a stretch, since what we are talking about is a cultural tradition, like serving Turkey on Thanksgiving.
nerzog,
You and the others are simply mistaken about tradition having no weight. As an example, look at where common law comes from. Our whole legal system is one based on tradition. Our culture is in large parat, also based on traditions.
You forget that many institutions, including government, the drinking age, marriage, private property rights, freedom of the press, etc. are all rooted in tradition. Many traditions have both legal and cultural facets. To argue they don't is to be ignorant of history, civic, law, and culture.
I didn't really notice this post before.
Tradition doesn't trump the Constitution. Saying that things like the drinking age are based on tradition doesn't mean religious discrimination is legal because of tradition.
Theirs would simply be "displays". Don't be so thick.
These are the same morons who, the other day when showing a clip of a gang of Santas running a race for charity, noted, in Gretchen's words, that someone "dressed as a DRY-Del also participated," and when the runner dressed as a dreidel was shown, stupid Doocy asked, "Why is that guy dressed as a cube?"
Ahhh the little known "The Bill of Rights doesn't apply on CHRISTMAS" clause of the Constitution. Good thing Gretchen's here to remind us of it!
"The Bill of Rights doesn't apply on CHRISTMAS" clause of the Constitution
Which only made it in because there ain't no Sanity Clause.
That sounds like something Marx said.
You caught me. I've been known to quote Marx before. And Lennon.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): On Ramadan -- we stopped bombing on Ramadan --
OOOOOh, the sensitivity and tolerance shown by a break in the bombings! Wow, I bet that made all the little people on the ground forget about all the burials of dead loved ones once they got a break from the bombings during ramadan. Oh yeah, we sure are tolerant. I bet they just wanted to sing the Star Spangled Banner once the bombings were stopped for ramadan. Especially all the people whose legs, arms and other body parts were blown off by the bombs the month before ramadan. I bet they wanted to send us friendly notes thanking us for our tolerance.
At least Gretchen is decently dressed now that it is winter. Her little sex-kitten outfits really got on my nerves during the spring and summer. I thought women had finally progressed to the point of being taken seriously for thier minds, but Gretchen was there to remind me that it's always better to show a lot of leg and cleavage. But then again, her boss is Rupert Murdoch. He used to have centerfolds in his "news" magazine.
Let's be honest... the practice of using attractive women as eye candy will always be a part of broadcasting. Sexism will always be with us, for better or worse.
I've noticed a trend in NFL coverage to have pretty young women doing sidelines reporting. There's nothing wrong with a woman doing this job, but you'd think there would be a few who could do it that don't look like cheerleaders.
Aw, come on, folks, it's not fair poking fun at this blonde bimbo from Planet Loony Tunes.
Um, you know Ramadan isn't in December, it's in September...
Typical FOX on air “talent”. Someone please put her out of her ignorant misery.